Assessing Evaluation Metrics for Neural Test Oracle Generation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, we revisit existing oracle generation studies plus ChatGPT to empirically investigate the current standing of their performance in both NLG-based and test adequacy metrics. Specifically, we train and run four state-of-the-art test oracle generation models on five NLG-based and two test adequacy metrics for our analysis. We apply two different correlation analyses between these two different sets of metrics. Surprisingly, we found no significant correlation between the NLG-based metrics and test adequacy metrics. For instance, oracles generated from ChatGPT on the project activemq-artemis had the highest performance on all the NLG-based metrics among the studied NOGs, however, it had the most number of projects with a decrease in test adequacy metrics compared to all the studied NOGs. We further conduct a qualitative analysis to explore the reasons behind our observations, we found that oracles with high NLG-based metrics but low test adequacy metrics tend to have complex or multiple chained method invocations within the oracle's parameters, making it hard for the model to generate completely, affecting the test adequacy metrics. On the other hand, oracles with low NLG-based metrics but high test adequacy metrics tend to have to call different assertion types or a different method that functions similarly to the ones in the ground truth. Overall, this work complements prior studies on test oracle generation with an extensive performance evaluation with both NLG and test adequacy metrics and provides guidelines for better assessment of deep learning applications in software test generation in the future.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".